The 1964 election was the last time a Democratic candidate for president won more than half of the nation’s white vote.

on July 2, 1964 President Lyndon Johnson signed the bill into law in the East Room of the White House. The Civil Rights Act formally made it illegal to discriminate in public institutions, employment, union membership and federally funded programs.

Behind closed doors, however, Johnson was pessimistic about the electoral fallout of the law’s passage. "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come," he told Bill Moyers, his speechwriter.

Although Johnson would win the presidency in a landslide that November -- bolstered by 94 percent of the black vote, a record that would hold until President Barack Obama's win in 2008 -- his concerns about the South proved justified.

The signing of the Civil Rights Act was a major moment in the realignment of America's two major political parties. White voters in the solidly Democratic South had been defecting to the Republican Party for decades, since the New Deal. But the tide picked up during the 1960s. Barry Goldwater, the Republican nominee for president in 1964, and Ronald Reagan, the popular Republican governor from California, would make their opposition to the law a central part of their political platforms. As black voters flocked into the Democratic fold after the act's signing, white voters -- particularly in the South -- bolted

Richard Nixon would use the racial resentments of southern whites to help propel himself to the White House. The South has been solidly Republican in every election since. Only two Democratic candidates -- Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, both governors from the South -- have nabbed any electoral votes from the region since.

This article struck me and couldn't believe how race has played such an important part in American politics for years. A Democratic presidential candidate has not gotten more than 50% of the white vote since just after the passing of the civil rights act in 1964. I thought it was a remarkable stat.

Although Johnson would win the presidency in a landslide that November -- bolstered by 94 percent of the black vote, a record that would hold until President Barack Obama's win in 2008 -- his concerns about the South proved justified.

Isn't this easily the more remarkable stat : 95%+ of black voters voted for Obama in '08. Shocked

Remarkable? Not so much. What percentage of black voters voted for a WHITE candidate in 2004? Hmmm, let's see....Bush or Kerry? Which one was the whiter candidate? Or Gore/Bush in 2000, or Clinton/Dole in '96...or Clinton/Perot/Bush '92, ad infinitum.

But thank you for focusing on the OP's point.

While a good many 'conservatives' reject Obama's birth-place, I haven't heard anyone claim that his mom was not white. I sometimes fantasize what would happen if Obama went on TV one night and claimed he was white. (No reason at all that 50% black is more important than 50% white.) A fairly substantial portion of the American population would instantly experience skull-explosion.

Right wing sites are full of predictions of black-on-white race war. Given the penchant for projection from the right, if Obama does get re-elected, we may well have episodes of white-on-black racial attacks like we had from Reconstruction to around the time of the civil rights bills in the 1960's. It won't be pretty.

After I got outta work today in the Downtown Crossing area of Boston there was this black dude just screaming his head off "Voooote Obaaaaaamaaa!!! Voooote Obaaaamaaa!!!".

It was kinda funny, but if he's doing it again tomorrow I may subtly tell him to stfu. I realize he likely knows which side his unemployed bread gets buttered on, but enough's enough when you're actually harassing what remains of the working population as they just try to get home.

To squeak out a majority, Mitt Romney probably needs to win at least 61 percent of the white vote — a figure exceeding what George H.W. Bush commanded over Michael Dukakis in 1988. The Republican strategist told Brownstein, “This is the last time anyone will try to do this” — “this” being a near total reliance on white votes to win a presidential election.

Blowing up the welfare state and affecting the largest upward redistribution of wealth in American history is a politically tricky project (hence Romney's belief that he may need to forego a second term). Hence the Romney campaign's clear plan to suture off its slowly declining but still potent base. Romney’s political-policy theme is an unmistakable appeal to identity politics. On Medicare, Romney is putting himself forward as the candidate who will outspend Obama, at least when it comes to benefits for people 55 years old and up. Romney will restore the $700 billion in Medicare budget cuts imposed by Obama to its rightful owners — people who are currently old.

He will cut subsidies to the non-elderly people who would get insurance through Obamacare — a program that, Romney’s ads remind older voters, is “NOT FOR YOU.” Romney’s repeated ads on welfare, blaring the brazen lie that Obama has repealed the welfare work requirement, hammer home the same theme. The purpose is to portray Obama as diverting resources from us to them.

In their heart of hearts, Romney and Ryan would probably prefer a more sweeping, across-the-board assault on the welfare state. But the immense popularity of the largest, middle-class social insurance programs like Medicare and Social Security force them into the divide-and-conquer gambit. They can promise to hold their disproportionately old, white base harmless and impose the entire brunt of their ambitious downsizing of government on young, poor, and disproportionately nonwhite Democratic constituencies.

Anybody under the age of 35 should be able to see that the GOP has declared war on the younger generations. As for blacks and the poor, well, the GOP has been against them for at least 50 years.

Given the penchant for projection from the right, if Obama does get re-elected, we may well have episodes of white-on-black racial attacks like we had from Reconstruction to around the time of the civil rights bills in the 1960's. It won't be pretty

And if Obama doesn't get re-elected, we may well have increased episodes of black-on-white racial attacks--a scenario far more plausible than your vision of redneck terror.

This article struck me and couldn't believe how race has played such an important part in American politics for years. A Democratic presidential candidate has not gotten more than 50% of the white vote since just after the passing of the civil rights act in 1964. I thought it was a remarkable stat.

Early on, AG Holder got in some hot water for saying we've never really had an honest discussion of race in this country. He was right.

We came close after the Civil War, but quickly gave it up when the South simply refused to accept racial equality and the North, rather than enforce the Civil War amendments, traded them off for reunion. The result was another century of near-enslavement for the millions of blacks, trapped with no land, no skills except farming, no education and no allies.

Why is Obama the only person to ever run for president who had to show his birth certificate?

Michelle Obama gave her speech at the DNC today. It was brilliant. Last week Ann Romney only 'had to humanize' Mitt. Michelle had to Americanize Barack. Why?

We all know why this particular group votes for the party of more free stuff. It is generally in their interests to get free stuff. White voters, on the other hand, are generally the origin of the free stuff. Why would whites vote for the party of free stuff? Please! Take my stuff!

The racialization of American politics is just about complete. The next 50 years will be completely unlike the last.

We all know why this particular group votes for the party of more free stuff. It is generally in their interests to get free stuff. White voters, on the other hand, are generally the origin of the free stuff. Why would whites vote for the party of free stuff? Please! Take my stuff!

The racialization of American politics is just about complete. The next 50 years will be completely unlike the last.

Well, yeah, I think Blacks are offended that Republicans characterize them as free-loaders. The 'Food-Stamp' President, etc. I mean, overtly racist Party or first Black President? Who will you choose, Black America?

Yes! Because in America the poor people are unable to find sufficient calories. All those thin poor people walking around the cities. Illegal immigrant Mexicans (or aspiring illegals still in Mexico) need those stamps! Come ON white people. Why you all so greedy? Send your check directly to Mexico and cut out the middleman.

We all know why this particular group votes for the party of more free stuff. It is generally in their interests to get free stuff. White voters, on the other hand, are generally the origin of the free stuff. Why would whites vote for the party of free stuff? Please! Take my stuff!

The racialization of American politics is just about complete. The next 50 years will be completely unlike the last.

Well, yeah, I think Blacks are offended that Republicans characterize them as free-loaders. The 'Food-Stamp' President, etc. I mean, overtly racist Party or first Black President? Who will you choose, Black America?

It's interesting how some people look at this situation and say that there is something wrong with the blacks for not voting for Republicans, instead of looking at why Republicans can't get, virtually any, minorities to vote for them. Because all blacks and latino's are poor and on assistance. Because there is no black upper or middle class, right?